Slashdot Mirror

Sure. A crappy, heavy, low-quality bike, with a no-name component groupset, that you likely won't get your moneys' worth out of before something on it fails, then at that point you may as well chuck it in the recycle bin and get another one. You need to spend more like $1000 to get something of decent quality that, properly maintained, will give you your moneys' worth.

$500 is a common tier 2 bike that involves change of material for frames and upgraded components. Sure touring bikes are $1000~$1500 but the $500 will do commuting just fine with minimal changes

How about the mother of three, one of which is still in diapers? You expect her to, what, stick the baby in a pannier, or in a backpack?

T-R-A-I-L-E-R Worked great for when my son was 1 year old. See also: bakfiet, Emily Finch http://bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/with-six-kids-and-no-car-this-mom-does-it-all-by-bike-73731

it's raining out

Trailers are covered, and bakfiets have them as well

parts of the country where it's below freezing during the winter, and there's snow everywhere? Ever ride in the snow?

Studded bike tires, and if needed a fatbike.

You ride 200 miles a week and don't know about any of these things? Wait a minute, you must be a roadie. Good troll sir, good troll.

Where do you live that the car is always at fault? Around here, the motorist rarely gets any punishment even if they run over and kill a cyclist.

I live in a college town that is bicycle-friendly and automobile-antagonistic, where every car-bike collision is considered to be the driver's fault and never the biker (at least in the vocal bike community that always starts shouting that every time it happens). And car-pedestrian accidents are used to demonstrate the deadly abuse of the driving privilege, even when the accident happens in an unmarked crosswalk on a US highway at 3AM on a rainy night and the pedestrian is dressed in black clothing. Not only was the ped trying to be unseen, he challenged the car to a duel that the laws of physics guaranteed he'd lose. But the driver was at fault because he couldn't see someone who didn't want to be seen and didn't want to wait thirty seconds to cross the normally empty road after the car went by.

Perhaps your lack of civic and police support comes from being in the city that created Critical Mass, a mostly leaderless group of bike riders who seem to have the goal of deliberately screwing up the public streets for those you claim have a legal right to be there -- cars. On that website we find the suggestion "but just stopping through a whole light change sequence can make all the difference for a fun, convivial, social ride." And it makes for a complete clog of the traffic behind the "mass". A pretty good monkey-wrenching of the system. It really is hard to imagine why the police might not be impressed with a group of people who have the goal of creating as much congestion and confusion as possible while breaking the law.

Also from that site:

Generally, Critical Mass is an ongoing opportunity to do something quite different in our lives, but most months, and this one in particular, we collectively and unconsciously recreate a lot of what's worst about our selfish, inconsiderate, boorish culture, everyone for themselves, and a shocking lack of empathy and solidarity in the execution of this whole event.

A simple google on the phrase "critical mass" (adding "bicycle" to avoid nuclear weaponry references) returns many reports of CM riders deliberately provoking confrontations with cars and even buses (and yes, some drivers doing the provoking). It's hard to ignore the stories like the one posted to a Portland blog for bikers, where the author was proud to have been part of a Chicago ride that blocked a six way intersection and kept an ambulance on a emergency run from getting through. (Here. About halfway down, search for "ambulance". Then search for "TriMet bus" to read an account of CM surrounding a bus, apparently angered that public mass transit was allowed on the streets.)

When one knows that CM was formed in SF, it's hard to accept your claim that most SF bike riders obey the laws. Or is it only when they are emboldened by being in a critical mass and unlikely to be arrested that they switch on the "ignore law" mode?

Rep Orcutt also issued some clarifying comments and apologized for the 'confusing' email.

Some cities, like mine, are trying: bike specific traffic lights

There have been attempts to move into that direction.

Not in this town. Not near the campus where I see most of the bikes and flagrant violations.

Give me a break and present some stats.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/09/city-auditors-survey-less-cars-more-bikes-and-safer-streets/ According to this article the City Auditor says that just 8% of people in Portland commute by bicycle, and that among people commuting to work downtown, that number drops to 4% for their primary mode and 8% for their secondary mode. I don't know what your definition of "many, many more" is, but to me a 12% vs 88% constitutes "many, many more".

Here is another article with data from a 2006 ODOT survey: http://velocommuter.org/blog/?p=76 there were on average 11,109 bike commuters vs. 197,632 car drivers, city wide. So yes, EVEN in this town, EVEN near "the campus" (PSU? UP? I'm assuming downtown by PSU).

And just for fun, one last set from the Portland Business Alliance http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/13/business-alliance-reports-uptick-in-bike-commuting/

Ahhh, yes, the ubiquitous "drivers break the law too" excuse that makes bicyclists as pure as the driven snow. Doesn't work that way.

It doesn't make cyclists as pure as snow, it just deflates the argument that "ZOMG so many bikers break the law, if drivers did that it would be INSANE!" argument that seems to persist.

As if bicyclists never speed.

It's true, they do, but it's a lot harder to speed on a bike. My last ride, on Sunday, my average speed for the ride over 13 miles was approximately 8.5 MPH, calculated by my GPS. I might have broken some laws there.

As if there wasn't an order of magnitude difference between a driver going five over on an interstate where everyone is going the same speed and the road was designed for twenty over the current limits

Doesn't make it any less illegal. Last time I checked the speed limits were pretty much set, not flexible based on perceived outdated limits. Hell, I just received a speeding ticket two months ago, and everyone else WAS going my speed, but I was the lucky person that got picked out. Damn, I should have used everyone else as an excuse to my actions when the cop stopped me. I'm sure he would have understood that breaking the law was OK, since the 35 MPH speed limit on Mclaughlin blvd is outdated. I could have also told him cyclists break the speed limit, too.

As if the driver of that 3000 pound vehicle is just looking for ways to kill you.

No, they aren't, but if I fuck up while biking, I stand a much greater chance of dying and they (maybe) have a dent in their vehicle. I'd like to live, and I ride with the assumption that people won't see me.

Stop spouting nonsense and stop trying to excuse the vast majority of your fellow bike riders who simply refuse to obey a simple law, instead expecting every car on the road to protect them from themselves and demanding special rights to pick and choose what laws they will obey.

I'll stop spouting when you go on a bike ride with me and see how it is on the other side and stop spouting nonsense yourself, like your arguments are any more valid than mine. I'm a driver too, but as far as I can tell you're not a cyclist. You're ignoring all the law violating that drivers do in order to push your anti-cyclist points, which as far as I can tell aren't backed up by anything other than your opinion.

Not in this town. Not near the campus where I see most of the bikes and flagrant violations.

Give me a break and present some stats.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/09/city-auditors-survey-less-cars-more-bikes-and-safer-streets/ According to this article the City Auditor says that just 8% of people in Portland commute by bicycle, and that among people commuting to work downtown, that number drops to 4% for their primary mode and 8% for their secondary mode. I don't know what your definition of "many, many more" is, but to me a 12% vs 88% constitutes "many, many more".

Here is another article with data from a 2006 ODOT survey: http://velocommuter.org/blog/?p=76 there were on average 11,109 bike commuters vs. 197,632 car drivers, city wide. So yes, EVEN in this town, EVEN near "the campus" (PSU? UP? I'm assuming downtown by PSU).

And just for fun, one last set from the Portland Business Alliance http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/13/business-alliance-reports-uptick-in-bike-commuting/

Ahhh, yes, the ubiquitous "drivers break the law too" excuse that makes bicyclists as pure as the driven snow. Doesn't work that way.

It doesn't make cyclists as pure as snow, it just deflates the argument that "ZOMG so many bikers break the law, if drivers did that it would be INSANE!" argument that seems to persist.

As if bicyclists never speed.

It's true, they do, but it's a lot harder to speed on a bike. My last ride, on Sunday, my average speed for the ride over 13 miles was approximately 8.5 MPH, calculated by my GPS. I might have broken some laws there.

As if there wasn't an order of magnitude difference between a driver going five over on an interstate where everyone is going the same speed and the road was designed for twenty over the current limits

Doesn't make it any less illegal. Last time I checked the speed limits were pretty much set, not flexible based on perceived outdated limits. Hell, I just received a speeding ticket two months ago, and everyone else WAS going my speed, but I was the lucky person that got picked out. Damn, I should have used everyone else as an excuse to my actions when the cop stopped me. I'm sure he would have understood that breaking the law was OK, since the 35 MPH speed limit on Mclaughlin blvd is outdated. I could have also told him cyclists break the speed limit, too.

As if the driver of that 3000 pound vehicle is just looking for ways to kill you.

No, they aren't, but if I fuck up while biking, I stand a much greater chance of dying and they (maybe) have a dent in their vehicle. I'd like to live, and I ride with the assumption that people won't see me.

Stop spouting nonsense and stop trying to excuse the vast majority of your fellow bike riders who simply refuse to obey a simple law, instead expecting every car on the road to protect them from themselves and demanding special rights to pick and choose what laws they will obey.

I'll stop spouting when you go on a bike ride with me and see how it is on the other side and stop spouting nonsense yourself, like your arguments are any more valid than mine. I'm a driver too, but as far as I can tell you're not a cyclist. You're ignoring all the law violating that drivers do in order to push your anti-cyclist points, which as far as I can tell aren't backed up by anything other than your opinion.

Cars are cheap because nearly everybody in this country needs a car. You need a car to get to work, you need it to get to school and you need it for recreation. Sure, if you happen to live in a major city there is also mass transit, but for a large percentage of the population a car is a necessary reality.

False dichotomy. I don't need a car to get to work, and the mass transit here sucks. I take the most efficient form of transportation available, which also happens to be one of the cheapest: a bicycle. My hilly 10-mile commute takes 40-45 minutes each way.

For groceries and other cargo (such as children), there's the bakfiets (and clones), xtracycle and bike trailers. People even bike in the rain and snow.

The auto manufacturers have done an impressive job making us believe that "everybody in this country needs a car".